Showing posts with label governance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label governance. Show all posts

Sunday, 28 May 2023

Making a decision

I've been thinking a lot about governance recently. In general, I like consensus - it's important that expert voices are heard and action is taken on the back of expertise. I dislike dictating how things are done for the same reason. Generally, I find people thrive when given the space to take ownership of problems and work through them.

However. This can create a few problems. The first is mediocrity - if everyone is compromising to form consensus then it is far too easy for nothing to actually be good. In the worst case, the important part of a proposal is compromised away and any outcome becomes a waste of time. This assumes there IS an outcome, which leads to the second problem - how is a decision actually reached? How do I stop people talking forever?

This latter problem is the one that concerns me more at the moment. I see different versions of non-decisions all over the place, from email threads which ambiguously leave "someone" to do the next thing to conversations which always need another person to engage before maybe everyone agrees. At worst, this never concludes but even at best it is sloooooow.

For me, this leads directly to the question "what is a decision?". When is something approved? When is it agreed? Or when it is simply some positive noises coming out of a discussion? It's important to draw this out for everyone involved. Individuals do not like being misquoted ("no, I didn't actually agree to this"), project managers deserve to know where they stand with sign-off so they can move on ("is that a decision?"), and I need to add some formality so I don't have to mediate these positions.

I'm leaning into some hypotheticals here - while I see some of the above at work, decisions are certainly being made, and people are thriving in their empowerment. However, and being selfish for a moment, it is actually my needs that are being neglected. As my role changes (and reflecting on my musings from my time covering as CIO) I find myself with less and less time to mediate circular conversations. So while things generally work, I need to move this from "generally" to "always" and "with less effort from me".

It's time to make some changes. As noted above, I've previously been happy to give people space to feel things out and learn from them. I don't want to lose that - it's an important part of empowerment and learning. However that is the discussion part - I need to add some stronger gateway decisions to the way we work. On reflection, I think I need to be better at separating discussion from decision and creating a formal record. There is too much going on at the moment to be imprecise about the state of decisions, so I need more opportunity to eyeball people and tell them to speak up or forever hold their peace.

The trick through all this will be retaining agile working patterns - I don't want to create some kind of decision auditing circus, but as we mature we both want to and need to be able to hold each other to account properly. This means having something to be held to - robust decision records where people can make their decisions known formally.

Initial muse for the moment - I've been exhausted this month. More on this later I feel.

Sunday, 10 November 2019

Governance or trust?

Since this series seems to be "Tom has a half-formed thought" let's look at governance vs trust. I regularly find myself having to find a comfortable place between the two and it's an interesting balancing act.

At one end of this spectrum, people rightly want to be trusted (and feel trusted, but that's a different post). When I ask "is X in a good place?" and the answer is "yes" that should be enough for me. My leadership team is highly skilled and I do trust them to do the right things.

However, at the other end of this spectrum, good governance tells me that I should have extensive metrics in place for the definition of "good" and that data flows straight to me so I don't have to ask this question, I can just look. I've already asked "give me these metrics and that will show me what you're doing".

I don't like either approach. I am not doing my job correctly if I don't have a clear understanding of what my technical leadership is doing and the decisions they are making. I also can't represent them effectively to the wider organisation without more detailed information. Ultimately, this hands-off approach leaves everyone at risk - while one can't really do the wrong thing when there are no parameters, with no specific questions being asked or answered, it's impossible to say someone did the right thing either. This is a serious problem when something goes wrong - and something always goes wrong eventually.

And I certainly don't want a deluge of data. I want to know that data is going to the right person and being acted upon. The right person isn't me - I have enough to do without interpreting unending raw data. This is why we have distributed leadership, and an empowered hierarchy. More importantly, the interpretation of the hard data is different in each area. I need to get to the story, and know the data is there if I need to dig into it.

Generally, I find that empowered autonomy is an excellent way to do things, however for the sake of everyone involved there has to be defined edges to that autonomy. That allows individuals to focus on their area, and gives me a structure for trust in the context of governance without it becoming intrusive. In practice, this means that I'm setting wide definitions and mostly looking at a traffic light rating system for ongoing reporting - giving very coarse-grained answers to my questions. This keeps a good balance between trust and governance. The raw data and interpretation of it is kept distributed where it belongs, but the specifics of each area means that questions are being asked and answered. The answers are trusted, but because the specifics are defined (can this be built? is the code linted? etc) there is enough of a shared understanding of what we mean by "yes" or "green". It also gives me a route to ask for the working, if there is need. It gives me what I need - a highlight of the areas that need discussion, and (hopefully) a sea of green for all the things that are fine.

Governance AND trust. I think.



This post is the second of five written in NaBloPoMo - the National Blogpost Month which, yes, is a thing. My plan is to write one post a weekend for the month of November. Due to some amazing planning, that means I have to write five posts rather than the four you might immediately expect. These posts will be a bit shorter than normal most likely and all of the posts will be tagged with (sigh) NaBloPoMo2019.